Allowed

Neela Satyanarayana v. Mr. R.Subrahmanvam

Telangana HC4 Apr 2022ARBAPPL/54/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three concurrent arbitration applications seeking appointment of sole arbitrators. While acknowledging the legal requirement to impound unstamped instruments, the Court allowed the applications to proceed with appointments, directing parties to produce originals and satisfy stamping duties before arbitration commences.

What did the court decide?

Appointed three sole arbitrators and directed parties to produce original agreements for stamping scrutiny before arbitration commences.

Neela Satyanarayana Vs Mr. R.Subrahmanvam — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IVONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶6

ARBITRATION APPLICATION Nos-54, 112 & 118 OF 2018

¶7

Arb.Appln.No.54 of 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

Neela Satyanarayana, S/o Bixamaiah

¶10

...APPLICANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Mr. R.Subrahmanyam, S/ o Late R.Rama Rao

¶13

..,RESPONDENT

¶14

Application under Section 1 1(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators 2000, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to:

¶15

i) To appoint a Sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate the Claims and disputes between the Applicant and Respondent pursuant to the Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney dated 07.08.2014;

¶16

ii) To award the costs of application.

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant: SRI PROMOD rep. SRI A.VENKATESH

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI HEMENDRANATH REDDY, Sr.Counsel for SRI N.M,KRISHNAIAH

¶19

Arb.Appln. NO: 112 OF 2018

¶20

Between:

¶21

PVP Capital Limited, Having its Registered Office at. Door No.2,9th Floor, KRIrrl Centre, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai- 600 031

...PETITIONER

AND

G AN

I Ilba le ll i

M/s Parameswara^{Art Productions'Plot No 761' Road No 39' Jubilee Hills'} Hyderabad-^500033'

¶29

s eⁿ o^{r V aI I ev' FiI m}

¶30

'^{Uir:l [:'*'**H r? ii,g',ft} "u,fi^{i?'JiJ"',il,:'r:I i,t8 3 I'} r V a V a a^{I I} ev'^{FiI mm}

¶31

r V a V a a^{I I} ev'^{FiI mm}

¶32

'^N" n?l^{il3 io'R l'fli fu i;l'-iflJ :ff,:?ff Jl' tB3"i8'l " " "}

¶33

M/s Parameswa r a^{Hatcheries Pvt Ltd" 18-190/1O-ppSai Baba Temple'Shad} " ii;;;;'i;;;oq - 'ius", Mahaboob Nasar' relansana'

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

Aoolication^{underSection '1 1(5) and (9),ql} lngl'bitration^{and ConciliationAct'} r s s o¹⁵⁵ Hnu r' [1 oi:,^i:3 circumstances^{stated in th€} "^-sil" ;", ii flel?t5il ":l rtty';[: n "'13',1 "ttl' to:

¶36

i\Toappointasolearbitratortoadjudicatetheclaimsanddisputes between'the-Apiiicrnt^{and Respondents;and}

¶37

ii) To award^{the costs of application and pass}

¶38

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRI M'V' PRATAP KUMAR}

¶39

CounselfortheRespondents:MS'D|VYArep.SRlV.S.R.AVADHANI

¶40

Arb.Aopln.^{118 0F2018}

¶41

Between:

¶42

y,:1$s:!?!jp:,:f i3lifi".flf"{i.[?ts:1's?8ffi fti":ft il"t#ffi; Suryanagar^{colonY,loltcn} F;ifi;;5;.^{Mr. M5nammedraher S/o tvlohammed osman'}

¶43

...APPLICANT

¶44

AND

¶45

r e n^{gi n e e r' R/o} :fl a:?il^{i,l I",1'J;"3 :: ?"#8 ii"} H:.["3fl^{Is, i, ZTIfl} 'j' ^,flfl ...RESPONDENT

¶46

Aoolication^{underSection 1 1(5) and (6).ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act'} circumstances r sso ii'5" si'i{.^{stated in} et^th( .d:i5nh{1":l^ti:**:n" ?.g'; "tn X",'B,l:,i:: to:

¶47

Claims and^disPutes i.To appoint^{a sole Arbitrator' to adjudicatethe} to the^Construction betweentheApplicantsandtheRespondentpursuant agreement^{dated 23'O4'2017:}

¶48

¶49

¶50

ii.To award the costs of application.

¶51

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PROMOD rep. SRI A.VENKATESH

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI J.PRABHAKAR

¶53

The Court delivered the following:

i: ii

--1,

THE HON'B LE^{SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN} ARBITRATI^{ON APPLICATION Nos.54112 &118 of2O18}

¶59

COMMON ORDER:

¶60

This common^{order will dispose of ArbitrationApplication} Nos.54, 112^{and 118 of 2018.}

¶61

2 Heard Mr'Promod,^{learned counselrepresenting} Mr.A.Venkatesh,learnedcounselfortheapplicantinArbitration Application Nos'54^{and 118 of 2018; Mr' Pratap Kumar' learned} counselfortheapplicantinArbitrationAppiicationNo.ll2of 20l8.AlsoheardMr.HemendranathReddy,learnedsenior counsel for the^{respondent in Arbitration Application No'54 of} 2018: Ms.Di.I/a,^{learned counseifor the respondentin Arbitration} Appiication^{No.1 12 of 2018; and Mr' JPrabhakar' learned} counsel for the^{respondentin ArbitrationApplicationNo ' 1 18 of} 2018.

¶62

3 The three arbitration^{applicationshave been filed under} Section 11^{(6) of the Arbitrationand Conciliation Act' 1996} (briefly,.thelgg6Act,hereinafter)forappointmentofarbitratorto arbitrate on the^{disputebetweenthe parties'}

¶63

¶64

4 Though at the^{end of a contentious hearing there emergeda} consensus amongst^{learned counsel for the parties, nonetheless to}

¶65

¶66

place the three applications in perspective it would be apposite to briefly na-rrate the facts.

¶67

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.54 OF 2O18:

¶68

5 In Arbitration Application No.54 of 2018, Neeia Satyanarayana is the applicant. It is stated that he is a reputed businessman engaged in the business of development of properties, real estate etc., since last many years. Respondent is 1n the absolute owner of a plot of iand admeasuring Ac.3-21 Sy.No.7 (part) of Asmadpet, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District within the jurisdiction of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally Circle (referred to hereinafter as 'the subject property').

¶69

6 Applicant and respondent had entered into a. development agreement - cum - General Power of Attorney on 07.08.2014 to develop the subject property and avail the benefits therefrom in the ratio ol 40 : 60. Pursuant thereto, respondent had delivered vacant possession of the subject property to the applicant to develop the same. Applicant has developed the subject property ald in the process has incurred huge expenses. However, on 02.02.2O17 , applicant came to knor.r, that respondent was trying to enter into a development agreement with third parties 1. e,

Mr.Srinivas Gupta Tattipalli and Mr. Madhu in respect of the same subject property. Such action of the respondent was breach of the development agreement dated 07.OB "2014 . Despite being approached by the applicant, respondent did not pay heed to such request.

¶74

7 Clause No.4 of the agreement dated 07.OB.2O|4 says that if any dispute arises betureen the parties to the said agreement, the parties sha11 make best effort to resolve the dispute amicably. In the event such elfort is not successful, the dispute would be resolved through arbitration in accordance with the 1996 Act by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the parties mutually, seat of 1n arbitration being at Hyderabad and the proceedings being English language

¶75

8 Applicant also liled an application under Section 9 of the 1996 Act before the Commercial Court-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking injunction against the respondent not to act in derogation of the deveiopment agreement dated 07.08.2O14. The same was registered as COP No.3 of 2017.

¶76

9 A notice dated 14.03.2018 u,as issued by the applicant \ informing the respondent that it had invoked the arbitration

¶77

¶78

) .)

¶79

clause arrd had nominated Justice C.V.Ramu1u, a retired Judge of this Court, as the sole arbitrator. Hou,ever, there was no response from the respondent. It was at that stage that the present application carne to be fi1ed.

¶80

10 Respondent has filed counter affidavit. In addition to generally denying the case of the applicant, it is specifically contended that the development agreement dated 07.OB.2O|4 containing the arbitration clause is not a registered document and it is also insufficientll, stamped. Being insufficiently stamped, applicant would be debarred from invoking the arbitration clause on the strength of such unenforceable document.

¶81

ARBITRATION APPLICATION ITe.l!? OF 2OI8:

¶82

11 In Arbitration Application No.112 of 2OlB, the applicant is PVP Capital Limited. According to the applicant it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of providing finance to the entertainment industry. Respondent No.1 is a film production house, producing films in South India. Respondent No.2 is the proprietor of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 approached the applicant for finance for production of a Telugu film called 'Temper'.

¶83

)

¶84

12 Applicant agreed to provlde loan to respondent No.1 to which respondent No.2 stood as guarantor. In this connection, a loan agreement dateci 26.O2.2O14 was entereci into between the applicant and respondent No.1. ln terms of the loan agreement daled 26.02.2014, applicant released an amount of Rs.22.00 crores as loan to respondent No.1. Responcient No.2 made several representations requesting the applicant for extension of time for repayment of the loan, which was agreed to by the applicant. In this connection, respondent Nos.1 and 2 signed a suppiementary agreement along with respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the ioan agreement dated 26.02.2014 on 12.O2.2015. As per the supplementary agreement, respondent Nos.3 and 4 provided additional guarantee to the loan availed of by respondent No. L along with the existing guarantor i.e. respondent No.2.

¶85

13 Respondent No. tr had made totai payment of Rs.20,52,50,000-00 (Rs.15,08,89,726-00 tou,arcis principal and Rs.4,77,60,274-00 towards interest). As on 12.02.20i5 an amount of Rs.6,91,00,000-00 \''as outstanding to be paid to the applicant by respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1 defaulted in such payment.

¶86

14 Applicant issued lega1 notice dated 07.03.2015 calling upon the respondents to forthwith pay the outstanding dues. Though

¶87

¶88

respondent No.2 had issued a cheque bearing No.927903 dated 12.04.2015 drawn on Andhra Bank, Film Nagar branch, Hyderabad, in lavour of the applicant for an amount of Rs.7,41,54,588-00, the said cheque was dishonoured when presented before the bank of the applicant on the ground of insufficiency of funds. This compelled the applicant to issue fresh legal notice dated 23.04.2015 which was followed by severa-l subsequent notices.

¶89

15 On 09.72.2015 respondent No.1 paid an amount of Rs. 1.00 crore to the applicant. But thereafter no further payments were made by respondent No.1.

¶90

16 Reference has been made to Clause 5 of the loan agreement, whereafter it is contended that an amount of Rs. 11,2S,81,133-OO was due and outstanding to the applicant as on 31.08.2018.

¶91

17 Invoking Clause 10. 1 of the ioan agreement, providing for reference of dispute to arbitration by a sole arbitrator at the instance of the applicant, 1ega1 notice dated 01.03.2018 was issued by the applicant to the respondents. It was stated therein that a dispute had arisen in terms of the agreement dated 26.02.2014 and that the applicant proposed to appoint Sri C.Rangarajan, a retired Judge of this Court, as the sole arbitrator

¶92

) )

¶93

¶94

for resolution of the dispute between the parties. There was no response from the respondents for u,hich the present apptication came to be filed

¶95

i8 Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 on behalf of all the respondents. It is stated that in terms of the agreement dated 26.02.2014, respondents have repaid the loan availed of from the applicant. The supplementary agreement dated 12'02.2015 was executed under duress. parties to the two agreements are different. That apart it is arso stated that there is no valid and enforceable arbitration clause in the two loan agreements.

¶96

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.1l8 oF 2018:

¶97

19 The third arbitration application i.e. Arbitration Application No.118 of 2018 has been liled by M/s.Apex Builders and Developers as the applicant which is stated to be a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and development in and around Hyderabad.

¶98

¶99

20 Respondent is the owner of a plot of land bearing No.64 under MIG category forming part of Sy.Nos.563/ 1/1, 564, 566, s67lt, 568, 569, s7o/t/2, 57r/2,613, 6ls, s72/2, 61t, 612,

¶100

¶101

) )

¶102

614/2, 560, 56 1 and 57414/2 situated at Batukammakunta, Baghamberpet (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property').

¶103

2l A construction agreement dated 23.O4.2017 was executed by the respondent in favour of the applicant. As per the said agreement, applicant would construct a residential building with total buiit up area of 3200 sft for which respondent had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,500-00 per sft to the applicant. The period of construction was 11 months from the date of agreement. As per Clause 1 4, in the event of any dispute or dilference arising between the parties, the matter is to be referred to a sole arbitrator under the 1996 Act and during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings the first party u,ould be entitled to entrust the construction activity to a third party.

¶104

22 It is stated that applicant had diligently carried out its part of the obligations as per the construction agreement dated 23.O4.2O17 . However, there r'vere delays for reasons beyond the control of the applicant such as obtaining permissions from GHMC etc. That apa-rt, in view of changes made in the specifications at the instance of the respondent, applicant ended up constructing a built up area of more than 4030 sft for which respondent had promised the applicant to make payment for the additional built up area.

¶105

¶106

) )

¶107

23 Not to speak of the additional built up area, respondent failed to pay even the agreed rate as per the agreement for the original built up area. In the meanwhile, there was cost escalation in construction. According to the applicant it is entitled to payment of Rs.70,49,500-00 but has been paid by the respondent an amount of Rs.35,29,000-00. Thus balance amount of Rs.35,20,500-00 is required to be paid.

¶108

24 Applicant brought this aspect to the notice of the respondent by addressing letter dated I 7 .03.2O15 to which respondent replied on 22,O3.2O 18 denying the claim of the applicanr. Additionally, respondent questioned the quaiity ol the construction work carried out by the applicant and unilaterally terminated the construction agreement dated 23.04.2O17 . Applicant filed Arbitration o.P.No.778 of 2018 on the file of X Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking interim injunction pending initiation of arbitral proceedings. However, the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 04.06.20lB.

¶109

25 Referring to Ciause 14 ol the construction agreement dated 23.O4.2017, applicant issued notice dared 2g.O7.2Olg nominating sri R.L.shankar, a retired District Judge, as the sole arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties.

¶110

¶111

¶112

26 Respondent in the reply dated 27.08.2018 did not agree with the nomination of the sole arbitrator by the applicant; instead proposed the names of two arbitrators viz., Sri V.V.Raghavan and Sri Vithai Rao, which was however not acceptable to the applicant. Hence the related application.

¶113

27 Respondent has filed counter affidavit contending that applicant is not a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The partnership deed is insufficiently stamped and is unregistered. Therefore, it was not competent to enter into the construction agreement dated 23.04.2017. That apart, contentions of the applicant have been disputed by stating that applicant has not even completed 4Ook of the total work.

¶114

SUBMISSIONS:

¶115

28 Learned counsel for the applicants have referred to the respective arbitration clauses in the related agreements between the parties and submits that in terms thereof there are clear disputes between the parties which are required to be resolved by way of arbitration as provided by the arbitration clauses.

¶116

29 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have \ raised the objection that the documents of which arbitration clause are a part, are insufficiently stamped. Therefore, such

¶117

¶118

documents are unexecutable in law. If that be so, prayer of the applicants for making reference to arbitration on the basis of such documents is not permissible. That apart, Mr.J.prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondent in Arbitration Application No.118 of 2018 further submits that the original of construction agreement dated 23.04.2017 has not been produced before the Court in spite of notice for production of it. Therefore, no cognizance can be taken of such construction agreement.

¶119

30 Learned counsel for respondents have relied upon the following decisions: SMS Tea Estates private Limited vs" Chandmari Tea Company Private Limitedlr Garware Wall Ropes Limited Vs. Coastal Marine Constructions And Engineering Limited2, Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram Vs. Bhaskar Rajua, and Vidya Drolia Vs. Durga Trading Corporation+.

¶120

31 Responding to the objection raisecl by learned counsel lor the respondents, learned counsel lor the applicants have placed reiiance on N.N.Global Mercantile private Limited Vs. Indo

¶121

Unique Flame Limiteds, which has overruled the decision in SMS

¶122

'12otry^t+ scc 66

¶123

'1zo^{rey I scc zos}

¶124

' izozo;^{I scc o rz}

¶125

o lzozrl z scc r

¶126

'^{(2ozt) q scc 3rg}

¶127

1,2

¶128

Tea Estates Private Limited (1 supra) and has made a reference to a constitution bench of five judges for an authoritative pronouncement. They have further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Intercontinental Hotels Group (Indiaf pvt. Limited vs. waterline Hoters pvt. Limited6 to contend that notwithstanding insufficiency of stamp duty or non-registration, parties can be referred to arbitration.

¶129

¶130

32 Joining issue, Mr. J. prabhakar learned counsel for the respondent submits that though in N.N.Global Mercantile Private Limited (5 supra) a three judge bench of the Supreme court has made a reference to the constitution bench, the law ]aid down in SMS Tea Estates private Limited (1 supra), Garware Wall Ropes Limited (2 supra), Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram (3 supra) and Vtdya Drolia (4 supra) would continue to hord the field til1 a contra view is rendered by the constitution bench. It is for making the reference that the three judge bench in N.N.Global Mercantile Private Limited (5 supra) disagreed with the view expressed by a coordinate bench in Vidya Drolia (4 supra). That does not mean that the view expressed in Vidya Drolia (4 supra) has been overruled.

¶131

u z0zz SCC Online SC 83

i I t

ANALYSIS:

33 As already noticed above, at^{the end of acontentious} hearing, learned counsel for the^{parties had resolvedthat the} three arbitration applications can^{be disposedof without waiting} for rectifying the defects at the first^{instance. Nonetheless,since} the issue raised and involved is of considerable^importance, therefore, it would be apposite for the Court to^{briefly highlight as} to how the law has been interpreted^{by the Supreme Court and} where it stands today.

¶136

34 In SMS Tea Estates Private Limited^{(1 supra) Supreme} Court held that where an arbitration clause^{is contained in an} unstamped agreement, provisions of^{the Stamp Act, 1899 would} require a Judge hearing the Section 11 application^{to impoundthe} agreement and ensure that stamp duty^{and penalty, if any,are} paid thereon before proceeding with the Section^{11 application.} That was a decision rendered by^{a two Judgebench.}

¶137

¶138

35 This view was adopted by a^{subsequenttvllo Judge bench of} the Supreme Court in Garware Wall^{Ropes Limited(2 supra),} wherein it was held that when an arbitration clause is^contained in a contract, the agreement only becomes a contract if it^is enforceable by law. Arbitration clause in an agreement would^not

1.4

) )

exist when it is not enforceable by lar,r''. Finally, the bench held that while proceeding r'vith a Section 1 1 application the High Court must impound the instrument lt'hich has not borne stamp duty and hand it over to the concerned authority who will then^decide the issues, qua, payment of stamp duty and penalty, if any.^As soon as stamp duty and penalty, if any, are paid on^the instrument, any of the parties can bring the instrument to the notice of the High Court r,"'hich u,i1l then^proceed to expeditiously hear and dispose of the Section 1 1 application.

¶143

36 This vieu, expressed in SMS Tea Estates Private Limited⁽¹ supra) and follor'r,ed in Garware Wall Ropes Limited^{(2 supra)} was adopted by a three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram (3 supra)

¶144

37 Another three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Vidya Drolia (4 supra) examined the question as to whether a landlord tenant dispute governed by the provisions of the Transfer^of Property Act, 1882, !'ould not be arbitrable as this wouid^be contradictory to public policy. Two distinct yet interconnected i aspects also arose for consideration before the Supreme Court. These two aspects were, meaning of non-arbitrability and who \ decides the question ol non-arbitrability. Of course, Supreme

¶145

¶146

court answered the reference by hording that a iandlord-tenant dispute is an arbitrable dispute as the Transfer of property Act, 1882 does not forbid or foreclose arbitration.

¶147

38 while examining the aspects of non-arbitrability and who decides non-arbitrability, Supreme Court also interpreted the word 'existence' appearing in Section 1 i; whereafter it came to the conclusion that an agreement evidenced in writing has no meaning unless the parties can be compelled to adhere to and abide by the terms" A party cannot sue and claim rights based on an unenforceable document. Existence of an arbitration agreement meaits an arbitration agreement that meets and satisfies the statutory requirements ol both the r996 Act as well as the contract Act and when it is enforceabre in raw. Existence and validity are intert*,ined and an arbitration agreement does not exist if it is illegal or does not satisfy mandatory legal requirements. Invalid agreement is no agreement.

¶148

39 In a separate but supplementary opinion, Justice N.V.Ramana opined that arbitration is a creature of consensus. It is completely dependent on party autonomy and the intention expressed in the agreement. A contract having multiple ciauses including an arbitration agreement can be divided into two parts; the clauses relating to the commercial relationship can be referred

¶149

¶150

to as the main contract, whereas the arbitration agreement would be a separate contract by itself. Explaining further, and upon reference to Section 8 of the 1996 Act, it has been held that the Court should refer the matter to arbitration if the validity of the arbitration agreement cannot be determined on a prima facie basis. The ruie for the Court^q'ould be t,hen in doubt. do refer'. Finally, it has been held that subject matter arbitrability cannot be decided at the stage of Sections 8 or 11 of the 1996 Act unless it is a clear case of deadwood.

¶151

40 However, in N.N.Global Mercantile Private Limited (5 supra) a three Judge bench ol the Supreme Court has taken the view that there is no legal impediment to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement pending payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract. Adjudication of the rights and obligations under the u,ork order or under the substantive commercial contract would not proceed before compliring with the mandatory provisions of the Stamp Act. Observrng that decision in SMS Tea Estates Private Limited (1 supra) does not lay d or,,,n the correct position in 1aw, it has been held that since the arbitration agreement is an independent agreement between the parties and is not chargeable to pa),ment of stamp duty, the non-payment of stamp duty on the commercial contract would not invalidate the

¶152

¶153

¶154

arbitration clause or render it unenforceable since it has an independent existence of its own. On that basis judgment rendered in SMS Tea Estates private Limited (1 supra) was overruled. Since the view taken in SMS Tea Estates private Limlted (1 supra) was arso followed by a coordinate bench in Vidya Drolia (4 supra), the bench in N.N.Global Mercantile Private Limlted (5 supra) expressecl doubt over the correctness of the vie'"r, expressed in Vidya Drolia (4 supra) and referred it to a constitution bench of live judges for an authoritative pronouncement. In that case both the parties had admitted existence of arbitration agreement. Therefore, the court directed the Secretary General of the Supreme Court to impound the concerned instrument and forr.vard it to the authority for assessment of stamp duty to be paid by the applicant.

¶155

¶156

4l confronted with the above situation, recently, a three judge bench of the supreme court in Intercontinentar Hotels Group (India) Rrt. Limited (6 supra) held that while there is a need to constitute a larger bench to settre the jurisprudence it was also cognizant of time sensitivity while dealing with arbitration issues. It was observed that a1l the applications were at a pre , appointment stage and that Court could not leave them hanging until the issue is settled by the constirution bench. Therefore, till

¶157

¶158

¶159

such time the issue is decided Court should ensure that arbitrations are carried on unless the issue before the Court patentiy indicates existence of deadwood.

¶160

42 In the facts of that case, it r',,as found that applicants had in fact paid the stamp duty. Therefore, the Supreme Court observed that whether the stamp duty so paid is insufficient or appropriate is a question that ma_v be gone into at a later stage; Supreme Court would not revrew or go into this aspect under Section 11 (6) of the 1996 Act.

¶161

CONCLUSIONS:

¶162

43 In view of the above legal position, learned counsel for the parties have reached a broad consensus in the following terms:-

¶163

i. Applicants shall produce the respective development agreements dated 07.08.2014, loan agreement dated 26.O2.2014 (supplementary agreement dated \2.O2,2O15) and construction agreement dated 23.04.20 17 in original before the Registrar General of this Court within three weeks from today,

¶164

ii. Those agreements shall be sent for scrutiny before the respective competent authoritv by the Registrar General ol this Court within two weeks of receipt,

¶165

iii. While the competent authority will address the issue regarding stamping of the documents, the dispute raised between the parties are to be referred to arbitration ol sole arbitrator each to be appointed in terms of the above three agreements,

¶166

iv. However, lhc arbitration shali commence once adequate stamping is done.

¶167

44 OrderedaccordinglSr.

I I

45 Insofar Arbitration^{Application No'54 of 2018 is concerned'} Court appoints^{Justice A.Gopal Reddy, a former Judge of this} Court, Plot^{No.511, Phase III,Road No'86, Jubilee Hills'} Hyderabad - 33,^{as the sole arbitrator'}

¶172

46 As regards^{ArbitrationApplicationNo' 112 of2018 is} concerned, Court^{appointsSri R'L Shankar, a retired District} Judge, 6th Floor,^{Dimond Block, LumbiniRockdale, Somajiguda'} Hyderabad - 5OOO82,^{as the sole arbitrator'}

¶173

47 Finaily, in^{Arbitration ApplicationNo'l18 of 2018' Court} appoints Sri M.^{RajamouliSarma, aretired District Judge'} H.No.1-10-4O^{&, 47, Fiat No.204,Sai Krupa Apartments'Ashok} Nagar, Street^{No.2, Hyderabad} -^{5OO O2O, as the sole arbitrator'}

¶174

48 A11 the parties^{shall appear before the respective arbitrators} on10.06.2o22atll.ooAM.Itisclarifiedthatarbitration proceedings shall^{commence once the statutoryrequirementsare} fulfilled.^{A11 contentions are kept open'}

¶175

49 This disposes^{of al1 the three arbitrationapplications'} Miscellaneous^{petitions, il any, pending in these three arbitration} applications^{shallstand closed-_,-'-}

¶176

Sd/. B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT^REGISTRAR // TRUE^COPY// 4)

¶177

SECTION^OFFICER

¶178

One Fair^{Copyto the Hon'bleSRIJUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN} ,rrE t^qrr --[r'or nis Lordship's Kind Perusal)

Contd

.r-.k'-1-_-

1 Hon'bie Sri Justice A.Gooal,Reddy (Retd.), plot No.51 1, phase_|il, Road No.86, Jubitee Hiils, Hyderabad_33 iBy S#ciuf 'fVf"""".rg"rl [Atong with a

¶186

i"X{^{"t ArbitrationApprication,nmi"Jiiarvr"i"iiur pupdo rrei*il-rr. -}

¶187

2 Sri R.L.Shanker, Retd. District Judge, 6rh Floor, Diamond Block, Lumbini Rockdate, Somajiouda, Hvderab.adlsoo oaiiay s;iiat Messengerl [Atons with a copy of Arbitration Apprication, ltdJivit"d-rvrrteriar papers fired with A.A.)

¶188

sri M.Rajamouri Sarma,^Retd..District Judge, H.No.r-10-40 & 47, FtatNo.204, Sai Krupa Apartments, Ashok Nagar, Stre6iivo.z, HvOeraOaO_sob 0r'0 H"f^{gSgialtvt_eSgengerl [Atong witha copy of Arbitration} Apptication, Affidavit & Material^papers filed with A.A.)

¶189